Join date: Jan 13, 2022


Policy (CX)-

Pronouns He/Him/His

Drake University Class of 2025

I was a National Qualifier in Policy Debate (with the best partner ever, Baxter Meyer), so I will have no trouble keeping up with any argument you choose to run. That being said, I do have a few paradigms.


Topicality is a major voter for me.

If you are not topical, you will have a substantially harder time winning the round. I had a few bad experiences with nontopical Affs in high school, so now I'm scarred for life and lean on T as a crutch because the Aff has 'unlimited' prep.


I love love love theory! If you want to run debate theory, I am all ears for it!

Typically, Multi-Actor Fiat is usually bad. (So no 50-State, NATO, EU, UN, etc. CPs) However, with that being said, I can be convinced otherwise in-round.

Furthermore, SCOTUS Fiat is something I won't allow in-round unless there is a case already heading to the SCOTUS.


I am a-okay with Ks. I think a good K (such as Cap, Neolib, Fem, Afropess, Queer, Security, etc.) can easily win the round if the argument is run correctly (which I think is rare).


I am fine with K-Affs so long as they're topical. If they are not topical, you can still win, but it is definitely an uphill battle for you. (See reasoning under T)


PICs, Topical CPs, and Nontopical CPs are all great! Truly, any type of CP is absolutely wonderful (especially for topics that have no good Neg Ground).

I personally believe that Conditionality is good (especially when it comes to CPs). I will kick arguments if told to.

I can be convinced Condo Bad in the round, but I will default to Condo Good if this argument isn't run.

Aff- Don't forget to perm!


Run all of the DAs! Make sure they end in nuclear war! Remember, President Sneezes=Nuclear War

But on a more serious note, there is nothing special here. Run what you want to run as a DA. I really enjoy smaller impact DAs, but the occasional big-stick DA can make for a fun debate! Just please, for the love of all things holy, make sure you have good link work.


Cross-X has always been a speech for me (and I also think this is where Debaters truly shine). Set traps, make jokes, do what you want. Whatever you say will be going down on the flow.

Open CX is alright with me. My partner and I did open CX all of the time in high school. Just ensure that the other team/judges are alright with Open CX.


Framing is important in Policy. I like to see good impact calculus. If there is no framing by either team in the round, I will default to Probablitity>Magnitude or the most "believable" framing that fits the round.



Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, xenophobic, etc. If you are any of those listed before, I will stop flowing, you will immediately lose the round, and you will receive 0 speaker points (only because I cannot give negative speaker points).

Don't clip evidence. If caught clipping evidence, I will vote you down and you will receive 0 speaker points.

I believe you can run almost any argument and win the debate; that means that I am fine with almost all arguments. I especially love the Shrek K, A-Z Spec, etc. Run those specific two arguments, and I will give you 30 speaker points. ;)

Y-Spec might make you lose the round, but you will win in my heart and get 30 speaker points. Just saying. Do it.

If you find a way to quote Baxter Meyer in-round, I will give you 30 speaker points. No questions asked.

If I am on a panel with Baxter Meyer, we vote the same way. If you have any questions about my paradigms, just check out his.

I am decent with speed (assuming we're in person). I don't mind speed, but full-on spreading is typically frowned upon by me; if I cannot understand you, I will let you know.

I will vote Neg on presumption if the Aff has major solvency deficits.

Other than that, I am tabula rasa as a judge.

I like to be part of the email chain:

You don't need to "earn" my ballot. It's high school debate. I'm not going to take out my feelings on a bunch of kids just wanting to enjoy their time in high school, spread a message, or actually enact social change. At the end of the day, just debate and have fun. High school doesn't last forever (although it might feel like that) :)

Public Forum (PF)-

Nothing truly special here. I did PF for a year and a half, so I know my way around Trad. PF Debate.

I am fine with traditional arguments in PF, but please, do not spread or run a progressive debate in PF. Let's keep the PUBLIC in Public Forum. (That means no Ks, CPs, or Theory). If you want to have a progressive debate, go do LD or Policy.

Other than what is above, I'm tabula rasa as a judge.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)-

This is the only style of debate I haven't debated before on a debate circuit. That being said, I did LD back in my high school debate class (amongst several national qualifiers in LD). Although I have a lack of experience truly debating in LD style, I do understand the basics.

Value/Value Criterion clash is paramount in LD, so I would like to see a lot of analysis on this specifically.

I don't mind progressive LD, so run whatever you want. (If you decide to run a progressive LD round, see the above policy paradigms.)

Bear in mind that util=trutil ;)

Other than that, I do not have many paradigms for LD, have fun!


Caleb Stewart

More actions